Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 2049997 - Please build libxml++ for EPEL 9
Summary: Please build libxml++ for EPEL 9
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: libxml++
Version: epel9
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Haïkel Guémar
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: EPELPackagersSIG 2031776 2144671
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-02-03 01:27 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2022-12-08 01:11 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: libxml++-2.42.2-1.el9
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-12-08 01:11:13 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2022-02-03 01:27:31 UTC
Description of problem:
Please build libxml++ for EPEL 9, because it's a dependency of the libffado package.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libxml++-2.42.1-3.fc36

Actual results:
No libxml++ in EPEL 9.

Expected results:
libxml++-2.42.1-3.el9 - or better ;-)

Additional info:
Please let me know if you are not interested in maintaining the package on EPEL 9 branch.

Comment 1 Robert Scheck 2022-05-26 14:29:33 UTC
If you do not wish to maintain libxml++ in epel9, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, the EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package; please add the epel-packagers-sig group through https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libxml++/addgroup and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches.

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2022-11-22 00:36:48 UTC
Will you be able to branch and build libxml++ in epel9? The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel9.

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2022-11-29 06:27:20 UTC
Will you be able to branch and build libxml++ in epel9? The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel9.

Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2022-12-06 17:23:59 UTC
I've now filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11170 according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/#epel_packagers_sig_members, because there was no response by the maintainer after three weeks and three attempts.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2022-12-07 20:32:11 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c38f50dd9d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c38f50dd9d

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-12-08 01:11:13 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c38f50dd9d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.